Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Mudda]

Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...

Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think? Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?

"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

 

[ding]

Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think? Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?

"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.

It's like you are waving your arms. They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about. And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you. Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?

Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ScienceRocks]

Find me real evidence for this god of yours and maybe you'll have a point...

Anyone that thinks throwing out all of science for this belief is the intellectual dead end and not believing in a unsupportable belief is insane.

 

[hobelim]

It's like you are waving your arms. They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about. And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you. Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?

Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh yeah? If your so smart why haven't you disabled that lame sig line?

 

[ding]

It's like you are waving your arms. They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about. And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you. Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?

Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[WillReadmore]

Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

We do not know of any "laws" that apply outside our own universe.

You are trying to pick and choose what you want from science.

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Czernobog]

Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh yeah? If your so smart why haven't you disabled that lame sig line?

LOL!!! amazing response. You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[hobelim]

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh yeah? If your so smart why haven't you disabled that lame sig line?

LOL!!! amazing response. You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Seriously... just go into your settings and remove the damn thing...It really isn't befitting a man of such distinguished pretensions...

 

[Czernobog]

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh yeah? If your so smart why haven't you disabled that lame sig line?

LOL!!! amazing response. You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Seriously... just go into your settings and remove the damn thing...It really isn't befitting a man of such distinguished pretensions...

Seriously. Keep up the ad hominems. They are clearly all you have left.

 

[hobelim]

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh yeah? If your so smart why haven't you disabled that lame sig line?

LOL!!! amazing response. You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Seriously... just go into your settings and remove the damn thing...It really isn't befitting a man of such distinguished pretensions...

Seriously. Keep up the ad hominems. They are clearly all you have left.

All I have left? lol..What are you talking about now?

I have no horse in this race.

Clearly, if you can't take a joke....

 

[ding]

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

 

[Mudda]

"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.

 

[ding]

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.

Because you believe you are agnostic.

 

[ding]

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

We do not know of any "laws" that apply outside our own universe.

You are trying to pick and choose what you want from science.

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Mudda]

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.

Because you believe you are agnostic.

I'm a hell of a lot more agnostic than you are Catholic, that's a fact, brah.

 

[BreezeWood]

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

.

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

seriously, do you have a link verifying the attributions for any of the figures within the 4th century compilation of your book. can you explain why not or why the history of christianity has been so one sided - why you are so vehemently opposed against people making their own choices that you attempt to write laws and other means to oppress them -

why does your religion lend itself entirely to the politics of hatred as demonstrated throughout history. fearing a free Spirit so much as having a need to kill them ...

 

[Czernobog]

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

No, I'm not, and no I didn't. You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy, and back does not create a loss of energy. Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that, because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is required to have a beginning" belief.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

But every other conversion does. Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible. That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation. You don't know what you are talking about.

You just confirmed that it is possible. By converting massless quantum matter, the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter. You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?

I provided the theory that works off of that possiblity. You just didn't bother to read it. Go do some research.

 

[ding]

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.

You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.

I'm heck of lot more fun though, lol. You are one to talk. You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.

Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.

Because you believe you are agnostic.

I'm a hell of a lot more agnostic than you are Catholic, that's a fact, brah.

That's probably not saying much.